NDPS Act | Confiscation Of Vehicle Can't Be Ordered Without Hearing Its Registered Owner : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that an order passed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (NDPS Act) for the confiscation of a vehicle will be illegal if it was passed without hearing the owner of the vehicle.Referring to Section 63 of the NDPS Act, the Court said that an order confiscation of an article cannot be passed until the expiry of one month from the date of...
The Supreme Court has held that an order passed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (NDPS Act) for the confiscation of a vehicle will be illegal if it was passed without hearing the owner of the vehicle.
Referring to Section 63 of the NDPS Act, the Court said that an order confiscation of an article cannot be passed until the expiry of one month from the date of seizure or without hearing any person who may claim any right thereto.
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was hearing an appeal filed against the order of the Rajasthan High Court affirming the confiscation of vehicle (a dumper) under the NDPS Act. The appeal was filed by the registered owner of the vehicle.
A case was registered against the appellant and two other accused for the offences under the NDPS Act. However, the appellant absconded and the trial was held only against the other two accused. After the trial, the trial court acquitted the other two accused giving them the benefit of doubt. However, the trial court also ordered the confiscation of the vehicle.
After the acquittal of the other two accused, the appellant came to be arrested. He was released on bail. He challenged the order of the trial court for confiscation of the vehicle on the ground that he was not heard. The High Court rejected his challenge.
The Supreme Court set aside the direction for confiscation after noting that the owner was not heard during the proceedings.
"The plain reading of Section 63 indicates that the court cannot order confiscation of an article until the expiry of one month from the date of seizure or without hearing any person who may claim any right thereto. It is true that at the time of the order of confiscation of the dumper, the appellant herein was not arrested. Had he been put to trial along with the other two co- accused, probably he would have submitted before the trial court why the confiscation order may not be passed."
"The fact remains that the appellant is the registered owner of the dumper. In terms of the provisions of Section 63 of the NDPS Act, the appellant has a right to be heard by the court before the final order of confiscation is passed and the seized vehicle is put to auction," the Court observed.
The appellant was directed to file an application before the trial court for opportunity of hearing regarding the confiscation. After the application is filed, the trial court was directed to decide within a period of two weeks.
Case Title : Pukhraj v. State of Rajasthan
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 395